Vale of Glamorgan Council v Roberts

Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the court may make a different order where partial success, unreasonable conduct or settlement conduct provides good reason. In a boundary dispute, success on one boundary will not necessarily justify dissecting a holistic construction exercise or making more than a nominal reduction, particularly where the issue caused little additional cost. Proportionality on the standard basis is ordinarily determined during detailed assessment. A party is not penalised for failing to initiate mediation where the opposing party made no positive mediation proposal and there was no refusal to mediate. The court also confirmed, following Hanina v Morland, that section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 does not enlarge a conveyance to include land outside the area conveyed.

The judgment concerned costs following the court’s substantive determination of a boundary dispute between the Vale of Glamorgan Council and Mark Andrew Tudor Roberts. The Council had succeeded in establishing almost all of the disputed boundaries, save for part of the eastern boundary. Mr Roberts argued that the Council had exaggerated its claim, pursued issues unreasonably, and failed to accept offers or engage in mediation. The court also considered an application for permission to appeal on questions concerning construction of the conveyances and the effect of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

1. The Council was the successful party. The starting point was therefore that Mr Roberts should pay its costs unless there was good reason for a different order.

2. The construction of the conveyance was a holistic exercise. It should not be dissected into individual boundaries or parts of boundaries merely because Mr Roberts succeeded on part of the eastern boundary. The issue caused no significant additional time or cost. Any reduction on that basis could be no more than nominal. The same applied to allegations of trespass, because Mr Roberts had claimed title to the relevant land and the title issue required investigation.

3. The Council’s interpretation of the eastern boundary was not unreasonable merely because the court rejected it. Some subjective evidence from Council officers was irrelevant, but it occupied little trial time. A nominal reduction was appropriate for that evidence, while relevant evidence concerning the auction and the preparation of the plan remained recoverable.

4. Where costs are awarded on the standard basis, proportionality is determined at assessment. It was not a reason at this stage to make a substantial reduction in the costs order.

5. No mediation had been refused. The offers made by Mr Roberts did not positively propose mediation and the Council was not obliged to suggest mediation merely because it was a local or public authority. Accordingly, the guidelines in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust did not apply to justify disallowing costs. The court nevertheless referred to the warning in Bradford v James about the value of early mediation in neighbour disputes.

6. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay 95 per cent of the Council’s costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. Permission to appeal was refused. On section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the court relied on Hanina v Morland, where the Court of Appeal held that the provision did not enlarge a conveyance to include land outside the conveyed area.